UrbanBaby Asks...
Do you 'enjoy' spending time with your kids?
- Yes, most of the time we really have fun together
- Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's really dull and aggravating
- Honestly most of the time it's not fun at all, but it's not supposed to be fun
- I really don't enjoy it at all, and wish I could spend less time with them
Already voted? View Results
Stay Connected with UrbanBaby: 
Flashback
UB Like it's 1776!
Posted September 13, 2007(191 replies)
More reminiscing about laughs on UrbanBaby »Inside UrbanBaby
UrbanBabyBuzz
Snowy Valentine by David
Meet Jasper, he’s a little bunny on a mission to surprise his wife for Valentine’s Day. He wants the perfect present, so trudges out in the snow looking for inspiration from his neighbors. When no gif ...
More »
The Myth of the Gifted Child - NY Magazine cover story.... should cause some stir here...
217 replies [ Reply | Watch | More-
I read the article with interest. I'm sure most UB parents would say that they don't care if the results don't give a reliable idea of either short-term or long-term potential. They just want their kids to do well enough on the test and get into X school. But hopefully over time, standardized tests will because less important at all ages. They just don't tell us much.
[ Reply | More ](BTW, this is coming from someone who put into a "gifted" program by her school back before the rise of the helicopter parent -- I don't think my mom even knew I was getting tested for it -- and who probably owes a good deal of her academic success to her test-taking abilities. But if I am smart, that's not what makes me smart!)
[ Reply | More ]
Smart is Smart. Everone knows this. You wanna make yourselves feel better b/c you have an average or below average dc, go right ahead.
[ Reply | More ]OR: I have a little baby, so the jury is still out on whether she's average or not (although she's drooling at a 6th-grade level) ... smart is not smart in the sense that smartness seems to be an evolving thing and difficult to quantify in a reliable way. And even when we think we've quantified it (for ex, IQ test), it doesn't necessarily show us who will still be considered smart 20 years later.
[ Reply | More ]NP: smart is not really an evolving/moving target. smart is smart, sorry about that. all the EQ, other metric data is really shoddy science that sounds like its coming from people who need to make themselves feel better or sell something. I don't know why we are afraid of absolutes, given how society works.
[ Reply | More ]And what about the IQ test which REJECTED 2 future Nobel winners and Isaac Sternas not gifted? Whatever. Keep dreaming your kid is going to cure cancer based on a test score at age 4.
[ Reply | More ]-
The problem with Terman's selection method was that he selected kids based on overall IQ scores. If he also considered giftedness in specific domain like, verbal vs. non-verbal iQs separetely, he would have been able to pick up those who didn't make the initial cut off. Usually, people are gifted in specific domain rather than globally gifted. Terman's study does not negate the value of IQ test. It just proved that his methodology was not as efficient.
[ Reply | More ]-
In general, let's say people like Enstein, gifted people are gifted in one specific area, like math, science, music etc. They are not necessarily gifted in all domain. For example, Enstein wasn't good in verbal domain. That's why he initially failed to be admitted in a prestigious school he applied in Geneva. If a child tested 99.99%tile in non-verbal and 40%percentile in verbal, this child's overall score may not be shown as gifted. However, this child could be prodigious in math and later turn into a fantastic scientist. The problem with Terman's study was that he didn't considere the gifteness in a specific domain.
[ Reply | More ]the school einstein failed to gain entrance to was zurich, not geneva, he was age 16 at the time (so not very relevant to this discussion) and the reason he failed was because his previous school failed to prepare him properly in subjects like history, music and geography. it was not an iq test that was administered in order to determine his "giftedness," it was the equivalent of the ap history exam, to test his knowledge. in any case, i daresay einstein would not have scored in the 40th percentile on the verbal section of the olsat.
[ Reply | More ]
And how was his study any different from ERB, SB5 or OLSAT? Think those are any more accurate?
[ Reply | More ]
-
-
I don't think people are afraid of absolutes, I think it's quite the opposite. We need to categorize the world around us, make sense of it all by putting things into boxes and ourselves in the best box. It's comforting. We want to think that because a test tells us we're smart (or our DC are smart), we are safely and forever in the smart box.
[ Reply | More ]
I love articles like this, so I read it closely. But there's nothing new in it. Yes, we all know that testing kids at 4 is absurd, especially for the kids who DON'T make the cut and are shut out of a great education. But what is the alternative? Sounds like within 2 years there will be test prep booklets that mimic all three tests - ERB, OLSAT, SB - in great detail, so changing tests won't matter. The article says that observations shouldn't be used unless they're done more than once, and even one observation is pretty impractical. And it would be horribly unfair if the kids are brought in at 5 and then retested at 9 and said, "Sorry, kids, you don't belong at this school anymore."
[ Reply | More ]I don't think they should begin gifted programs until older, personally. Maybe even until middle school.
[ Reply | More ]Yes, but then you're again weighting it toward the haves over the have-nots - the people who can afford to live in the highly desirable zones and wait out elementary until getting a shot at G&T.
[ Reply | More ]-
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The educational gap between kids in different socioeconomic quartiles increases, not decreases, with age.
[ Reply | More ]-
What the DOE should do is have the same cutoffs it has now, but also say that if a certain district has fewer than 5% of students making the G&T cut, then the top 5% of students in that district by OLSAT score, regardless of actual score, qualify for district G&T. Seems like such an obvious solution to me.
[ Reply | More ]they essentially already tried that two years ago by lowering the cutoff to 90% and there were still districts where there weren't enough dcs to make up a class. lowering much beyond that is sort of a joke. the solution isn't to lower the bar, it's to raise the scores of disadvantaged dcs.
[ Reply | More ]No, the mistake they made was trying to set the same standard for every district. It's not fair to do that. The bar should be 95% generally, except if enough kids in a specific district don't qualify, then the top 5% or 10% of students should be selected, even if we're talking scores in the 80%. That would kill two birds with one stone - reduce the # of UMC kids qualifying and increase the # of poorer students qualifying
[ Reply | More ]
-
Come on. When a dc is bright, it is clear. Who cares anyway. As long as the dc isn;t rotting away bored senseless in some crapass gen ed, it
[ Reply | More ]-
i disagree. when 40% of hunter dcs get into an ivy league school (and presumably the other 60% are the ones who didn't deserve to be there in the first place), then that's much better than simply not rotting away in some crapass gen ed. i thought the writer got it absolutely right: the stakes are enormously high.
[ Reply | More ]so... a kid who gets into, oh say... Duke, Williams, Stanford, MIT... "didn't deserve to be there in the first place"??
[ Reply | More ]np. hunter is obviously revising its thinking on admissions since dcs entering now don't get an automatic in for hs. i happen to know dcs in hs who shouldn't be there but whose parents are hanging on for dear life, hoping for the brass ring.
[ Reply | More ]where do you get information that they are "revising it's thinking"? The information given to K parents this year, was the same as given to parents last year and the year before that. If a child is having difficulty it will be identified by 3rd grade and a decision will be made as to whether the child continues.
[ Reply | More ]-
np: of course not, but you have to figure 30-40% of hunter grads go on to mediocre colleges.
[ Reply | More ]
-
I realize that the test was a crapshoot. If my DD hadn't been feeling well or was uncomfortable with the tester, she might well have scored lower. That being said, with a straight A average in a very competitive gifted high school (10th grade), it was an accurate assessment of her potential.
[ Reply | More ]-
in theory though, if a child does "better" than he or she should, wouldn't that child struggle in an accelerated environment as he or she gets older? How often do kids leave the gifted schools?
[ Reply | More ]In five years at Hunter, I've only known one family to leave that didn't leave the city, and they went to a private. Never heard what the specific details were, other than that the parents thought the child needed more one on one time with teachers.
[ Reply | More ]I think the pyschologists onsite at Hunter Round 2 are very adept at assessing kids. I do not think any average kids prepped in the SB will get past those guys.
[ Reply | More ]Then you just don;t know everyone -- or maybe parents don't say real reason they are leaving. Know other stories re leaving Hunter specifically but don't want to say more.
[ Reply | More ]My dc is in the HS now and in the elementary school, I've only heard of one going to private school also (that I can recall). Others moved out of town. In HS though, more kids left for both private and other public HSs.
[ Reply | More ]
Again, another cheap shot on IQ test for a quick magazine reading. The problem discussed on the article is about people cheating on the IQ test. The writer is confused to equate the cheating to the negation of IQ test. This writer's stance is similar to Malcom Gladwell' book which is to please mass who don't have high IQ scores. IQ test is an instrument to measure one's cognitive ability. It never claimed to measure motivation, hard work, resilience, opportunity, discipline etc., which all contribute one's success. However, there's a lot one can do with the result of IQ test as long as one doesn't cheat on the test. This trend in American society to belittle giftedness and general anti-intellectual stance are quite baffling. Look what's happening in America now!
[ Reply | More ]I can't imagine the article causing much of a stir in nyc, particularly on ub. There was no groundbreaking or wavemaking content.The resources cited were very limited; it addressed very little of the 'meat' surrounding the issues of identifying and fostering intellectually gifted learners. It read as much else which has been parlayed as newsy and was likely better suited for a non-New York audience.Once again, an article(cover story, no less)on gifted learners which has little to do with them.
[ Reply | More ]i thought there was some interesting stuff there. the marshmallow test--hilarious!--as well as the other data, which i found very persuasive. you certainly don't see those studies sited here on ub where the topic is debated endlessly. btw, the article wasn't about gifted learners or fostering them intellectually, so i'm not sure why you would be disappointed that it didn't cover those subjects....
[ Reply | More ]np: Marshmellow test is like a cliche already. No news here. Did't it say "the myth of the Gifted" on the cover? The article doesn't seem much to do with gifted child. It's just a cheap shot trying to sell the magazine.
[ Reply | More ]a cliche that has never been mentioned here. i guess i'm just not up on my gifted testing cliches. i thought the article was very much about the MYTH of the gifted child. not the gifted child. sorry you seem to be taking this so personally. is your dc perhaps a "gifted" dc who is proving to be otherwise?
[ Reply | More ]np Actual opinions are usually personal.Attitudes as reflected in your post are usually about one's own personal bones.
[ Reply | More ]sorry, no dog in this hunt. it just seems weird you would call it a "cheap shot" unless you think that shot is aimed at your dc. fwiw, my dc scored a 99 and i still think the olsat is one f&cked up test, an "opinion" that seems to be supported by facts presented in the article.
[ Reply | More ]OLSAT is not an IQ test. Why can I call it a cheap shot when it is? It doesn't have to be about my child.
[ Reply | More ]but who is the cheap shot against? you are entitled to your opinion and can like the article or not, but is it a cheap shot against the people who devise the test? and i never said the olsat was an iq test.
[ Reply | More ]"Cheap shot", meaning the writer is trying to prove IQ test is meaningless and giftedness doesn't really exist. However, the article doesn't prove anything it claimed in the title. It was discussing cheating on IQ test and insinuating the validity of IQ test as a result of cheating. It has nothing to do with giftedness per se. Misleading title just to grab attention. That's why I called it a "cheap shot".
[ Reply | More ]nowhere did the writer say giftedness doesn't exist, and nowhere did she say iq tests are meaningless. quite the opposite. also, it's not just because of prepping (if that's what you mean by cheating) that the tests are not valid. did you actually read the article?
[ Reply | More ]I read the article. Prepping for an IQ test is cheating since it's not intended for a prep unlike an achievement tests. What is discussed about IQ test is so simplistic and it draws conclusion based on partial and selective views. there are undeniable merits on early IQ testing which is totally ignored in this article.
[ Reply | More ]Did YOU read the article? Truly gifted children identified at an early age can benefit immensely from the test results. There are so may cases of misdiagnosed gifted children harmed by general educational system that does not address their needs, for example. I can go on...however, what's the point? You don't understand and you don't seem to have any need to understand.
[ Reply | More ]IQ test doesn't test musical giftedness. You don't know the profile of those 2 noble prize winners. Their overall IQ score may not have been very high. Based on what I recall, Terman accepted the recommendation from teachers etc in selecting these kids. It proves that teachers etc. are not a good juge of who are gifted or not. A lot can be said about Isaac Stern and those 2 Nobel winners. The writer chose the angle that suits her agenda.
[ Reply | More ]sorry, but i'd rather not waste my time looking for "research" that doesn't exist. my dc did test as gifted. (not sure what makes you think otherwise, except that you invent things where they don't exist.) but i would never use that fact, as you do, to prove that the test is reliable.
[ Reply | More ]yes, i am willing to admit my dc may turn out to be bright but no genius by the time he is 18. are you not willing to admit the same? are you truly convinced you are raising a little stephen hawkings and that anyone who dares suggest there's a 75% chance you're not is beneath contempt? you seem to have an awful lot invested in how smart your dc is.
[ Reply | More ]
"Better suited for a non NY audience"- You crack me up. You NYer are THE audience for "ground breaking or wavemaking content
[ Reply | More ]
The defensiveness of some of these responders is sort of amusing. I sadly think having their 4-yr-olds score 99/99/99 on an ERB may wind up being the pinnacle for them. Everyone has known for years that ERB scores do not correlate with future academic success, but there is a lot of money at stake.
[ Reply | More ]-
While I do agree that none of the data collected at this age is definitive,I'd hope there'd be an opening for discussion regarding the importance-and near absence-of educational opportunities for those children truly in need. The constant denial that they exist is pretty disheartening. for all of us.
[ Reply | More ]there are very, very few dcs "truly in need." if your dc is the one in 10,000 who is, i sympathize. but that's clearly not what this article was about.
[ Reply | More ]An important truth,spoken in your post and perpetuated through the article itself,is that the numbers themselves may not be accurately gathered through current,widely administered assessment methods.It isn't 1 in 10,00 in truth,only as gleaned through results of those tested. That stat is old-and this is not about my child,self or use for sympathy.Can anyone on this thread cite the $ allotment of cents on the dollar for 'gifted' education?
[ Reply | More ]-
Then chances are, you may not be advocating very well for your "supposedly gifted" child.
[ Reply | More ]no, i simply don't feel the need to advocate for my dc in this way. to steal dollars from dcs who might not even read otherwise. two dollars for every hundred (which is the actual stat--very easy to find if you'd actually tried) seems perfectly fair to me since no more than 2 dcs in a hundred are actually gifted enough to require special education.
[ Reply | More ]
-
yep, just another view of a dumbassed pissing match where children are left improperly attended.
[ Reply | More ]improperly attended? lol. like, left in their bugs at the far side of the playground while their nannies are on their phones? it's interesting that the posters who seem to think their brilliant dcs are so desperately ignored are the ones whose writing skills ain't all that. maybe the giftedness came from dad.
[ Reply | More ]
-
Smarter replies above. I'll add only, the title claims that "the Gifted Child" is a myth, then does nothing to prove that.
[ Reply | More ]i think you're hairsplitting. i think it persuasively laid out the case for the myth of the four-year-olds' olsat results. but you're not going to put that on a magazine cover.
[ Reply | More ]I came away with the conclusion that diagnosing a dc as gifted at 4 y.o. is reliable only 25% of the time. Hence, a myth.
[ Reply | More ]np I doubt that. Fwiw, my dc tested as gifted at 4 and is several grades ahead at 8.
[ Reply | More ]Don't believe me, read the article. And long term success is not measured at 8 y.o., for heaven's sake.
[ Reply | More ]I think the article is not addressing anything about truly gifted children with such a misleading title "myth of gifted children". It should have said "prepping for the K admission test in NYC."
[ Reply | More ]-
-
then why do all the longitudinal studies conclude that they are, in fact, THAT unreliable?
[ Reply | More ]-
There are 2 cited in the NYMag article - 1 from Calif. and the other that cited 25% reliability.
[ Reply | More ]-
This is not controversial stuff. Even educators and scholars, who are very in favor of gifted programs, agree current standardized tests for 4 yo's are poor predictors of identifying who will remain gifted in years to come. And even with all its faults, I would certainly enroll my child in a G&T program if given an seat -- no matter how imperfect the measure.
[ Reply | More ]
-
-
-
I'm not sure about the reliabilty of that study. I think relaibility of IQ test around age 6-7 is quite high compared to their adult IQ score.
[ Reply | More ]-
OR: No. That means only that claiming to dx at greater accuracy is a myth. The bigger point is, I don't think anyone would argue that there are not "Gifted Children" but THAT is what the article says is the myth.
[ Reply | More ]-
Exactly why Hunter kids who get in at K would never get in at 7th grade!!!! Look,all these elite institutions need some supposedly 'objective' reasons to eliminate 3/4 of the applicants at the get go. So a "test" becomes it, lke the SATS, LSATs, etc. It's just practical, but the mistake is when ppl actually mistake good scores for intelligence/ability/potential
[ Reply | More ]All it will cause is a bunch of defensive responses: from those who assume DC is the next Hawking or Einstein based on the score; and from those whose children didn't get the coveted 99. Testig 4 year olds is garbage and we all know it.
[ Reply | More ]As a parent, ask yourself this question when your test results show up. Do you really believe they define your child? That they'll be no better than how they tested at 4? Come on!!! Don't get locked in such a box! These tests may be accurate for some and completely wrong for others. You have to believe in your child, always, so that they believe in themselves. Don't narrow their potential because of what some test found. And don't make their heads to big in the event they scored well. Life isn't just an ERB, SB, etc. test.
[ Reply | More ]My kid is 99percentile on SB and I still don't think I've got a Hawking or Einstein. I do, however, have a really, really smart kid. That has held up for many years since taking the SB at--gasp--age 3. In our case, the test was accurate. It's hard for parents to accept that the test does do a damn good job of assessing who's gifted. It may not do as good a job at assessing who isn't gifted--kids can have a bad day. But accept, please, that the test is very often valid.
[ Reply | More ]I agree. I think what people don't understand is that there's huge range of giftedness, moderately gifted to profoundly gifted. High IQ in itself doesn't make them Einstein. However, having low IQ guarantee that they will not become Einstein. If a child is truly gifted, their way of processing information is fundamentally different from average kids, and these kids need help to deal with their unique and different way of learning and viewing this world. There is no need to be jealous for kids who are simply different.
[ Reply | More ]
The emperor has no clothes on. The truth of the matter is: NYers pay the exorbitant cost of NY privates for the benefit of continuing to live in the city and still receive a suburban public school education. With the amount of anxiety ridden focus that parents on this board alone place on their child going to the right private, I would have thought the amount of kids going onto ivies at the end of their "stellar education" would have been MUCH higher. Over the course of 12 years not accounting for inflation, parents will have paid out an average of $420K just for tuition. $420k!!! and the highest number of kids going to ivy out of all of the privates was a mere 30% for one class!!! Come on now. Suburban kids go to ivies as well--in fact I would say kids from public schools are the predominant portion of children attending ivy league schools. Why are any of you doing this???? It's not logical. Its also an absolute crime that NY public schools are allowed to be this broken that parents feel they must go to such lengths in order to receive what suburban parents get for free. Housing is ridiculous, the public schools are awful, the place is filthy, why do you all stay??
[ Reply | More ]
-
